MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Allahabad High Court Upholds Eviction of Akbar Nagar Slum Dwellers, Ensures Right to Clean Drinking Water Takes Precedence Over Unauthorised Occupation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court, in a landmark decision, has upheld the eviction of slum dwellers from Akbar Nagar, balancing the rights of slum dwellers against the larger public interest of ensuring clean drinking water to the citizens of Lucknow. The bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Om Prakash Shukla observed, “the right to clean drinking water for the majority cannot be compromised by the unauthorized occupation of government land.” [Para 14]

The case arose from a conflict of fundamental rights: the right of slum dwellers to adequate housing versus the right to clean drinking water under Article 21 of the Constitution. Petitioners, residents of Akbar Nagar slums, challenged the eviction orders issued by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and sought rehabilitation under relevant state laws and policies. [Para 1, 4]

The slum dwellers of Akbar Nagar had occupied the banks of the Kukrail water channel, a critical source of drinking water for Lucknow. The LDA had issued eviction orders under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which were contested by the slum dwellers on various legal grounds. [Para 4, 6]

The court recognized both rights as integral to the right to life under Article 21. However, it emphasized the need to prioritize the right to clean drinking water for a larger population over the unauthorized occupation by the slum dwellers. Referring to several Supreme Court judgments, the bench underscored the importance of both rights but favored the public interest in clean water. [Para 13-18]

Decision: The court directed the state to rehabilitate the BPL residents of Akbar Nagar under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana’ with an initial deposit of Rs. 1,000, extending the scheme to all residents seeking relocation. It set a timeline for eviction and rehabilitation, ordering the vacating of the area by March 31, 2024. [Para 20-23]

In conclusion, the court upheld the eviction, emphasizing the fundamental right to clean drinking water while providing a humane approach to eviction through a comprehensive rehabilitation plan. [Para 24-26]

Date of Decision: March 6, 2024

Raju Sahu And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others

Similar News